When we would be able to find it back, you would see that at the time Ultra Low Latency Kernel Streaming came about, my PC of the time showed a standard latency of 1000us always (this was Vista and only happened to me). Isn't that 1ms ? that is way more than the few samples @ 384KHz I could achieve back then. So to that regard Latency Checker is a dangerous thing to interpret.

But being all further with everything for quite some years now, the lower latency that Latency Checker shows seems to be related to SQ.There are also reports around that tell that when XX starts playing, latency drops significantly. So that can happen too.

Thus let's be careful about using this as an absolute measurement and notice it influences itself too (what about the 1ms ClockResolution it depicts ?).

When we would be able to find it back, you would see that at the time Ultra Low Latency Kernel Streaming came about, my PC of the time showed a standard latency of 1000us always (this was Vista and only happened to me). Isn't that 1ms ? that is way more than the few samples @ 384KHz I could achieve back then. So to that regard Latency Checker is a dangerous thing to interpret.

But being all further with everything for quite some years now, the lower latency that Latency Checker shows seems to be related to SQ.There are also reports around that tell that when XX starts playing, latency drops significantly. So that can happen too.

Thus let's be careful about using this as an absolute measurement and notice it influences itself too (what about the 1ms ClockResolution it depicts ?).

Peter

I quote . Infact I did try the other way around of seeing things , and was not bad also ... ( letting see to it more latency than usual ) . I will be careful with tests .Moreover regarding the XX clock resolution I have to say one thing .The graph above I obtained , was also Disabling the HPET function in BIOS . But that has the effect of pratically halve the HH clock resolution available ( of course in my system ) . Re enabling that I have back the 15msec , and again .... in DCP the latency shows a slightly higher value .

Disabeling the powersaving functions of the cpu does not help for latency (or sq for that matter).

What helps for the idle latency is disabeling the HPET timer. From avg 40 to avg 9 uS . When playing XX with below settings the latency rises to 400uS (indeed at apprx half the timeres) .Is this normal for NOS1 on USB3 PICe or might it indicate that the pc is somewhere not optimal?

Updated the USB driver to the latest version, but that does not matter.

Crazy, especially because I already dare say that from these very few obervations (observators) - and despite it would be statistically illegal to draw conclusions - ... that what people heard before, is confirmed by looking at the graphs now.(boleary might like to post some)

Coen seems to be off, but maybe he is not at all. So, sound is best at 1333 and latency is quite high. But how does the latency show at 1066 when sound is worse. Higher ? (suring playback I mean)

I´ve tested the music in an external USB3 drive and yes, it seems to sound a bit better than with the internal drives. It seems like there are more harmonics in the sound. Other thing that I noted is that the volume (Alt + U) reacts faster and also the volume level seems to be a little higher from one level to the next one than when using the internal music drive.I have one question, if I use this USB3 drive, should I disconnect the internal music drive to get better SQ?. I guess that would be better with less hdd working.

and also the volume level seems to be a little higher from one level to the next one than when using the internal music drive.

This seems impossible to me. Of course, when the sound comes across as more loud (but think more harsh) it can be so to some extend, but the relativeness of levels shouldn't change really.Peter

What I noticed is that when I turn up the volume (Alt + U) the amount of volume (level) seems to be higher than when I use the internal hdd. I don´t know if I explain myself correctly but anyway, I´m not really sure about it, maybe all the album seems to play at higher level. Not an important issue though, what´s important is that it seems that the sq is better using an external music USB3 drive.

Has any one tested the external USB3 drive (music) powered by the USB bus versus powered by an external power supply?. If so, what are the differences with respect to the SQ?. Maybe this is already answered in the forum.....

Has any one tested the external USB3 drive (music) powered by the USB bus versus powered by an external power supply?. If so, what are the differences with respect to the SQ?. Maybe this is already answered in the forum.....

Juan

Hi Juan ,

what can I say is that I had the same "feeling " about the volume when using the USB3 external drive but with external PS .It seemed for a while that in the USB3 it was a bit lower volume and different presentation.

Juan, per Nick's Tweaks, i get better sound unplugging my Plextor optical drive and secondary SATA II drive when listening. This is a bit cumbersome when wanting to rip cause things have to be plugged in (just the optical drive, the secondary internal drive never gets used). Given the need to access the inside of the computer, I'm currently using the sides of my computer as bases for my amp and DAC! My wife kicked me and my system out of the living room and I'm now on the third floor where I can play as loud as I want whenever I want. Though everything was moved hastily and I now have to figure out how to organize the room. I haven't decided yet whether to get a proper "tower audio stand" to put components --DAC and AMP--on, or whether to just get a couple of "single shelf" boards (extra thick hi-end meat cutting boards perhaps with some well placed spiked feet ) and leave the DAC and amp as they currently are on the floor. See below.

Sorry about the digression there. What I really want to say is that I currently run the OS with XX and all of my music on the same 3 TB SATA III spinning drive. I have found an amazing difference in SQ between music ripped to the internal SATA II secondary drive and music ripped to the 3 TB OS drive, with the latter providing the amazing sound. I have not tried an external USB3 drive but am willing to bet the family farm on an external drive not being as good as the SATA III OS drive.

Of course there are important practical problems with setting ones system up this way, namely: If music sounds best on the OS drive then why make backups that sound inferior? In other words be prepared to rerip ALL your tunes if the OS drive dies-- a pain in the ass, truly. But if you don't have a "lot " of music--my entire collection--as wave files-- is "only" 1.5 TB's-- its a risk/pain you might be willing to make. For me, the sound is that much better that, for now, I'm willing to do it this way.

Though I don't know for sure all the causes for the SATA III OS drive sounding so good, I do know that the SQ is made worse by connecting the SATA III drive with a standard SATA cable. My Corsair AX650 Power Supply came with two dedicated SATA III cables. At one point plugging and unplugging drives I accidentally used a stadard SATA cable on the SATA III drive. SQ was not what I had gotten used to and when I realized the mistake I switched back to the SATA III cable and, viola, the good sound returned. SATA III has a metal locking clip that the standard SATA cable doesn't have. Certainly the electronics of SATA III contribute to the difference.

On the other hand, I wonder if the UEFI interface that came with the ASUS MB, which interface is necessary for using a 3 or 4 TB drive as an OS drive, is what has so changed SQ here?

Lastly, my new room's dimensions are 11x15 feet with an 18 " "punch out" for a bay type widow on the exterior wall. The sound here is much better than the living room, probably because there is no piano between the speakers and the floor has wall to wall carpet. Anyway, any suggestions regarding room treatments are welcome!

The USB3 disc I use for my normal audio PC is a. connected through a powered USB3 hub;b. the disc (enclosure) itself is powered as well (if that still matters at all).

I'm pretty sure this setup is a good thing for SQ.Notice that the music files still are where they always were (as far as I know they are all SATAII, but some will be SATAIII connected - by "accident")

Brian, I know you don't have all the width in the world there, but it seems easy enough to try put the speakers under that roof (so, a 90 degree twist of all). That really does things, but probably you'll have too few length now ...

Regards to your wife and tell her that you banned her to downstairs ...